Marjorie Taylor Greene Has A Bill To Burden Elon Musk’s Twitter With An Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits
from the a-gift-for-you-elon dept
You may have heard that Republican politicians have been celebrating Elon Musk’s announced plans to purchase Twitter, in the belief that his extraordinarily confused understanding of free speech and content moderation will allow them to ramp up the kinds of nonsense, abuse, and harassment they can spread on Twitter. I’m still not convinced that will actually be the result, but, in the meantime, it does seem weird that Republicans are now trying to burden their new friend with an avalanche of frivolous lawsuits. But, that’s exactly what they’re doing.
Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene — not exactly known for understanding, well, anything — has introduced a bill to completely abolish Section 230. Also not known for being much of an original thinker, Greene’s bill is simply the House companion to Senator Bill Hagerty’s bill that was mocked almost exactly a year ago.
Of course, stripping Section 230 still doesn’t actually accomplish what most Republicans seem to think it would. Since it would increase liability on websites massively, it would actually make them much more interested in removing content to avoid those lawsuits. Indeed, Greene’s own press release about the bill seems to tout increased lawsuits as a feature of the bill.
Creating a Private Right of Action:
- Consumers can address violations of the previous two provisions via civil action.
So, it seems that Greene’s excited move to abolish Section 230… is also a plan to burden Elon Musk with a ton of frivolous lawsuits. Also, Trump and his Truth Social.
It’s almost as if none of them have thought through any of this.
Filed Under: bill hagerty, elon musk, marjorie taylor greene, private right of action, section 230
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Marjorie Taylor Greene Has A Bill To Burden Elon Musk’s Twitter With An Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits”
Twitter et al should have an anti-230 party for a few hours every year.
Every time somebody tries to post something, they get a landing page/popup:
“In the absence of Section 230, we would face the prospect of defending numerous lawsuits. We would win, but it would not be cost-effective to defend them all vigorously. In such a world, we would be compelled to review every post made on this site before it is made available to the wider internet. This is a preview of that world. Your post is number 12,430,659 in the moderation queue. It will be approved or disapproved in approximately 33 days.”
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
'Winning' the battle, losing the war
As ever with moves like this if it wouldn’t be so incredibly damaging I’d be tempted to hope that they actually got their way and managed to kill 230 because it would not end how they think it would.
Make sites liable for user content and they’re going to…
-Pre-screen everything and only allow the most harmless content through, followed by taking down any current content or content that makes it through on a hair-trigger, which is not going to work out well for them.
-Moderate nothing, turning every platform into a cesspit and spam-filled wasteland, making it useless for them and everyone else.
-Bar user content entirely, prohibiting them and everyone else from posting at all.
Whether those in the ‘platforms are taking down too much’ or ‘platforms aren’t taking down enough’ camps at no point does ‘kill 230’ work out for anyone other than the misguided and/or spiteful who just want to watch any and all online platforms burn.
Re:
If a site can be sued whether it moderates or not, it will be shuttered before the lawyers bill exceed adverting income. Pre-screening does not protect it from lawsuits, when “I have been silenced” is reason for suing them.
Re:
I almost wonder if the real endgame is to try and stuff the genie back in the bottle and go back to the days when big corporations were the sole gatekeepers of what messages could get out there, because your second scenario is the only one that leaves any user-generated content out there at all, meaning any remaining sites that allow user-generated content would essentially become 4chan.
Re: Re:
That’s what corporations want, and they typically pay a good chunk of the bills for the average political campaign, so…
“It’s almost as if none of them have thought through any of this.”
The outcome doesn’t matter, its taking the victory lap of having done the thing that will make everything better for the faithful, even if the outcome screws the faithful… as long as they think the other people are screwed a tiny bit more.
It doesn’t matter if it makes everything worse, they still won.
MTG last seen claiming the Catholic Church is run by Satan & facing perjury charges for lying on the stand.
Re: "MTG last seen claiming the Catholic Church is run by Satan"
Since the conservative arm of SCOTUS is dominated by confessed Catholics, the tree she’s barking at will never produce a squirrel
Re: Re:
The one running in the wheel in her head disagrees.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Reasoned Approach
Reading the Marjorie Taylor Green press release, the private right to litigation would not be against controversial comments. Rather, it would allow lawsuits if access is denied, and also would discourage algorithmic manipulation (i.e.- shadowbanning). The press release also claims that the bill will provide protection for 3rd party speech. Certainly, I’d like to see the details, but so far this sounds like this legislation has been very well thought out. Common carrier for monopolies, 3rd party speech protection, moderation allowed only allowed against obscenity and illegal activity, and due process for platforms that discriminate based on political affiliation.
Re:
Which is a long winded way of saying no moderation allowed. Also, hello to more spam than you can consume, because taking it down is denying access.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Looking at the actual text of the bill, part (2)(B)(ii)(II) on page 10 specifically defines commercial spam to be a form of harassment for which there is no civil liability. It appears the legislation already covers that.
Re: Re: Re:
Is political spam and shouting down the opposition also harassment, because that is what the bill is about enabling.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Shouting Down
Would that include a random group of like minded people abusing the spam flag feature and just flagging posts based on who posts them.
You wonder why I cuss you loser out. There is no point in being civil when its clear that regardless of what you write it will be flagged.
You misfits can suck my dick.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
For someone who whines all the time about stereotypes, you have a considerable obsession about having your cock fellated. Now why is that?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
A mouth is a mouth and guys generally suck better dick than women. NEXT!
Re: Re: Re:5
… and you wonder why your comments get flagged. It’s almost as if you have no internal censor, and cannot learn from experience.
Re: Re: Re:6 I'm guessing...
Of course he can’t learn – look at how he “learned” that men are better dick-lickers than women….
Oh, wait… did he mean that men suck a better grade of dick, that women don’t know how to choose which grade of dick to suck? Inquiring minds are curious…
Obviously he also failed Basic Grammer. Sad, that waste of tax dollars for public education.
Re: Re: Re:7
Well, I prefer a man to suck my dick than a woman, but then I am gay. ;D
Re: Re: Re:7
Apparently sexual minorities are supposed to be all-loving, all-accepting, all-enlightened individuals who have transcended the filthy limitations of the heteronormative. When they say things like “only a woman can love a woman” or “only a guy knows how to suck a cock” that’s not being sexist at all, because straight people have had it too good for too long.
Chozen is a sucker for stereotypes, and falls for the stupidest bait ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 He Asked
He asked. Mike’s misfists like to act all woke but the moment they have to hear even the slightest thing about actually LBGT stuff they get all uncomfortable.
Re: Re: Re:7
Hey buddy, you figure out how to order a beer from a pubic louse yet?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8 Hey Buddy
Hey buddy figured out the difference between owning a spectrum license and owning the spectrum?
Seems one of those things matters a lot more on a blog called “TechBlog.”
Re: Re: Re:9
Nice deflection says the guy who thinks a public house is the same thing as public housing…
And thinks you need a special license to remove an unruly customer from your restaurant or bar…
And thinks that I can’t use force to remove you from my property once I tell you that you are trespassing.
Just admit that you don’t have all the degrees you pretend you do, as it becomes more and more evident that you are lying with every post you make here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:10 Eat A Dick
All those things are generally true. You morons had to point to Texas which is the most extreme in the nation.
Yet here you are ignoring that your leader didn’t know the difference between a owning a spectrum license and owning the spectrum itself.
Re: Re: Re:11
I mean, 1) as I recall, we were specifically talking about Texas before that came up (it was a Texas law being discussed to begin with), so of course we’d refer to Texas’s law, and 2) as I have said every time you made that complaint, Texas is far from alone in this particular area; a lot of states have similar provisions about allowing you to physically move a trespasser.
I also mentioned that the point is completely moot as you literally cannot use physical force to remove someone from a digital platform the way you can do so from a physical place, so there is no possibility of committing assault in the process. The discussion was about whether and under what circumstances you have the right to remove someone from your property somehow, not about what means are permitted to enforce that right.
You’re still wrong about the laws of trespass, but it wouldn’t even matter if you were right as it wouldn’t support your point. Now stop digging.
As has already been explained to you, they were using the colloquial sense of the term “own” at that time, not the legal sense, and owning a spectrum license is just as much owning the spectrum as owning a digital license to a game is owning that game. There are important legal distinctions, yes, but in the context being referred to, those were irrelevant.
Seriously, do you enjoy being provably wrong or something?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12 You Recall
You recall, I said that law in most states is that only licensed security or cops can physically remove a person if that person is not being violent. That is the law in most states.
You morons threw everything you could think of at the wall because ‘throwing someone out’ is you favorite analogy.
Go fuck yourself.
Re: Re: Re:13
With great pleasure that you’ll never know because you’d rather suck dick than masturbate.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14 Homophobe!
Homophobe,
Funny you guys act like you are all tolerant but let a “conservative” (im actually economically left wing) bisexual have an opinion and you are screaming ‘cocksucker’
Re: Re: Re:13
Yet I have asked you over and over again to provide links to state’s laws that explain what you think is true, but you never do.
I suspect it’s because you’re full of shit and don’t have any real facts to back up your asertion.
Re: Re: Re:13
That’s not the law in my state, which is not Texas, nor in just about every “Stand Your Ground” state (which doesn’t include mine), and it still wouldn’t help your case even if it was the law in every state since that says nothing about whether or when a person can be removed, only limiting when physical force can be used to do the removing, which is completely inapplicable to online spaces, making the whole thing completely irrelevant.
Metaphorically throwing someone out; how it gets done is irrelevant to the analogy.
And no, we didn’t. As I pointed out, Texas is far from the only exception, and your law still has nothing to do with whether or when someone can be “thrown out” by some means, only how it can be done or who can do it. Again, that is irrelevant to the analogy. And pointing those two things out and what Texas’s law is does not qualify as “throwing everything at the wall”. It was exactly two arguments, both of which have merit. You have yet to provide any substantial rebuttal to either, particularly the most important one.
Also, you didn’t say it was “most states” until after it was pointed out that multiple states’ laws—including Texas—say otherwise. You have the order of events wrong.
Now, unless you have a substantive rebuttal to my point about it being inapplicable anyways, I think we’re done here.
Re: Re: Re:9
Hey, buddy. You figure out the difference between ‘TechBlog’ and Techdirt yet?
Re: Re: Re:9
You didn’t answer the question…
Re: Re: Re:5
Not wasting any time throwing tantrums this time are you. Did your vacuum cleaner break down and until it’s fixed you have to resort to using your hand.
Re: Re: Re:3
He seems to be equally endowed bellow the belt and above the collar.
He has taken a quantum leap from nothing to where he is now. >_>
Re: Re: Re:4
0 × n = 0
Re: Re: Re:3
No, it doesn’t incluse hallucinations from the cranially damaged.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, thanks for the personal attack on me. Free clue: whenever you compare certain individuals to members of the Disability community (e.g., people with head injuries, as in my case), it’s not the certain individuals you’re denigrating.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yeah, the differently abled deserve better than to be lumped in with you.
Re: Re: Re:6
(> _ <) =3
Re: Re: Re:6
What is your problem with people with disabilities? A few weeks ago you were bullying an autistic person, and now you’re bullying a person with a head injury. Wow.
Re: Re: Re:7
Yeah, no, that’s not what happened.
Re: Re: Re:8
I was lurking. Stephen’s actions were bullying, if not outright harassment. Prove otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:9
Tough shit.
Grow a set and move on.
Re: Re: Re:10
If all you can’t provide evidence rebutting the statement, then you have lost the argument. You move on.
Re: Re: Re:11
That is the exact opposite of how the burden of proof works.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Not when I have a prima facie case. I guess you don’t know how legal proceedings actually work.
Re: Re: Re:13 Gimme bout tree-fiddy
Nah son. This ain’t night court. You bring the accusation you bring the proof. No one here is gonna do your homework for free.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:14
I repeat: prima facie case. If no one can show anything to successfully rebut the evidence that’s in this thread and the other, then my case stands on its merits. Like I said, you don’t know how an actual court works.
Re: Re: Re:15
So you admit you have no evidence at all.
Re: Re: Re:16
Tu quoque.
Re: Re: Re:17
Moving on from motte and baily in your terms-you-hear-but-don’t-bother-to-understand, hmmm?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:18
You claim that someone else is hard of understanding while showing a lack of understanding of what the motte and bailey fallacy actually is. Ironic.
Re: Re: Re:19
Nobody literate could have possibly read that from my post. Nice self-own there.
Re: Re: Re:15
I repeat: prima facie case.
Yeah, whatever.
Fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:15
You haven’t specified what about what Stephen said is ableist in either thread, and you still haven’t specified which other thread you’re even talking about.
You’re making positive claims, so you have the burden of proof until you provide actual, specific evidence that would support your claims.
Re: Re: Re:16
Also, this isn’t a courtroom.
Re: Re: Re:17
Then stop talking about “burden of proof” like it is.
Re: Re: Re:18
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:18
Burden of proof is not specific to legal proceedings. Anyone making a factual claim is logically responsible for providing evidence for it. It doesn’t make any sense to expect the audience to rebut a claim made without evidence, though many people try to convince their audience that they should.
If you don’t care to provide evidence though, that’s totally fine.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
-Christopher Hitchens.
Re: Re: Re:18
The burden of proof is a concept that applies in court and out, when it’s applied in court it may be more strictly defined but ‘if you make the claim it’s on you to bring the evidence to back it’ applies regardless.
Re: Re: Re:18
“Burden of proof” applies to any discussion. It is far from exclusive to courtrooms. If you make a positive claim (outside of something like your religion) in any discussion, regardless of whether or not you’re in a courtroom, you have the burden of proof.
The details of what satisfies the burden of proof may not be as exacting outside a courtroom, but the concept still applies regardless.
Seriously, are you new here? We talk about who has the burden of proof all the time here without reference to a court case. The community here has consistently asked for people to provide evidence of claims in numerous threads.
Also, what exactly is so hard about providing evidence in this case? Given that one of the events was in this exact thread and so should be easy to reference, and the other was in a thread from a week ago, which shouldn’t take you that long to find, it really shouldn’t be that hard. We’re not going to do your work for you, but we’re not asking anything difficult of you either.
Re: Re: Re:16
Oh didn’t you hear? You can just say “prima facie” and then you don’t have to provide any evidence for your claim. So handy!
Re: Re: Re:9
You first. You made a positive claim here:
As an autistic person myself, I would be interested if this was actually true, but I don’t recall that actually happening.
You also asserted:
This, too, is a positive claim, so you have the burden of proof.
This one appears to be a misunderstanding: Stephen was asserting that The Other Anonymous Coward should not be lumped in with “differently abled people”, which, in context, clearly included people with actual head injuries.
No one in this conversation has an actual belief that The Other Anonymous Coward really has a head injury; it was just a joke by Toom. And Stephen was implicitly saying that people like those with a head injury deserve better than to be lumped in with people like The Other Anonymous Coward. How that can be considered bullying someone with an actual head injury is beyond me.
Re: Re: Re:10
No one in this conversation has an actual belief that The Other Anonymous Coward really has a head injury…
Except The Other Anonymous Coward and those defending them. Everyone else is akin to those that don’t believe trans people are real.
Re: Re: Re:11
Actually, TOAC never actually claimed to have a head injury. That’s just an assumption you and others defending him made after the fact due to ambiguous wording on his part.
At any rate, the point is that neither Stephen nor Toom actually believed that TOAC had an actual head injury when they made their comments. They may not have disbelieved it, but they had no reason to believe he actually did.
Also, given that no one believes that people with head injuries don’t exist, your analogy fails on the most basic level.
Re: Re: Re:10
Having just spent hours scrutinising your previous comments on this site for any indication of you being on the autism spectrum and finding nothing (broken search feature), I can only presume that you’re playing the “autism card” to excuse ableist attacks against actually autistic people.
Re: Re: Re:11
Wow, seriously? Because it’s been something that came up long before this, and one other person was actually able to deduce that I had autism without me explicitly saying so.
No, I most certainly am not “playing the ‘autism card’ to excuse ableist attacks against actually autistic people.” In fact, I’ve previously called out attacks on autistic people for being bigoted or ignorant. The fact that you would assume otherwise is, frankly, quite offensive to me. I’ve dealt with autism all my life. I have dealt with actual ableists attacking people with autism in the past.
Now, is this something I frequently bring up online for no reason? Of course not. But then, Stephen doesn’t spend every week talking about his sexuality, either, and he’s a lot more active on this site than I am. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I’m not going to say that you’re lying about searching (the search feature is kinda broken), but again, just because I don’t bring it up that often—particularly when the topic of such people doesn’t come up that often here—doesn’t mean that I’m just making it up to defend someone, nor does it mean that the evidence isn’t somewhere. Again, one guy actually deduced that I had autism without me explicitly saying that I was.
Seriously, the only reason I brought it up in this case was to show that not all people with disabilities find the phrase in question offensive. That is, it was actually directly relevant. While I don’t try to hide it, I don’t go around advertising it without a good reason.
While I can’t recall every instance it came up (it hasn’t come up in a while, and, in one case, it came up in multiple random articles due to a troll bringing up the subject for no reason at all in those articles), it likely came up in an article about anti-vaxxers, as I often mention taking offense at the idea that autism is worse than the risk of getting an entirely preventable disease that is potentially fatal or debilitating in such online discussions, but honestly, it’s been a long time since then, so I can’t recall.
Also, I have yet to see where I defended an ableist attack on autistic people. I did say I have seen no evidence that Stephen was involved in one, and that’s still the case, but then I asked for evidence to back up the claim that he was, which still hasn’t been provided.
So yeah, you presume far too much based on far too little.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:12
In fact, I’ve previously called out attacks on autistic people for being bigoted or ignorant.
Except recently, it seems. If you’re not willing to defend autistic people against unreasonable attack every time, pointing to an isolated incident, especially without the amount of evidence you demand from others, proves nothing.
Re: Re: Re:13
I am making a claim about my diagnosis, and even if I have not actually called out attacks on autistic people, that would not disprove that claim. It is not actually a provable claim, any more than a claim like “I’m a Christian” or “I’m an atheist”. When making claims about one’s own mind, no proof is necessary.
I chose to point out that I have, in fact, mentioned it in the distant past solely to point out that I’m annoyed about having to defend myself on that specific fact in the first place, not to prove a point.
Now, as for not defending autistic people from every unreasonable attack recently, like I said, I am unaware of any occurring recently. Only an assertion of one having happened a week ago (supposedly) without even a link to the specific article or a quote of the alleged attack. Generally, when I see the topic come up, I nearly always comment on it, but until this comment section, I have not seen it come up on this site in a year or so. That’s not to say it hasn’t come up; only that I have remained unaware of it.
And, of course, “unreasonable” is subjective. Without knowing the specifics, I cannot judge for myself whether or not a given attack is unreasonable or even an attack on autism, rather than someone who—coincidentally—happens to have autism.
Now, rather than insist that I try to prove statements that were never that important to the point I was trying to make to begin with, why not just show me the evidence that I am missing so I can decide for myself whether or not to defend Stephen on that front? Given that the alleged attack happened only about a week ago, it should be rather trivial for someone to find it and present it here (especially compared to the 1+ years ago that I recall since the last time I recall the subject coming up on this site).
Generally, I don’t assume bad faith on anyone’s part in online discussions unless I have specific evidence of bad faith or general evidence of a history of bad faith by that person, and I would like for that to be reciprocated. However, I understand that not everyone feels that way, so I offered a reason for people to lean more towards good-faith. That’s all my mentioning of my autism was meant to be. My mentioning of previous defenses of autistic people (most of which were not on this site, so I am unwilling to put them here for privacy reasons, or a year old or older, so searching for them is not worth the effort if the other person shows no signs of offering any evidence at all) was not meant as an actual argument, either, but just an expression of my frustration over dealing with someone acting as though they know what’s in my head when that’s not even the main argument and doesn’t even matter that much!
As for the amount of evidence I require, any evidence will do, really. And I don’t think that’s unreasonable. One would just be a quote from this comment section with reasoning, and the other would be a link to or quote from the comment section of an article from a week ago. It’s really not that hard, so why has no one even tried?
Re: Re: Re:14
Whenever an attack on a specific member of a marginalized group takes place, Techdirt Insiders tend to conspire to flag the evidence as “spam,” effectively hiding it from some users. That could be the reason it wasn’t linked to.
Re: Re: Re:15
I have seen no evidence of this, so [citation needed].
i.e. users who don’t want to read the hidden comments, are incompetent/lazy, and/or have some plugin or something that prevents pretty basic features like that from working.
I offered an alternative in the form of a quote, but regardless, that doesn’t explain why no one has even tried, or why no one has linked to the article with the alleged attack on someone with autism.
Currently, only one person has even cited this as an issue in this discussion, but they claimed they cannot be viewed on cellphones, which is false since I can do so easily on mine.
Also, none of Stephen’s posts have been hidden from what I can tell, at least on here, so whatever he allegedly did, it won’t be found in a hidden post.
Re: Re: Re:15
[Hallucinates events not in reality]
Re: Re: Re:15
Ah yes, that’s why users flag comments harassing minority groups with the Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam button, they’re trying to hide the evidence of what someone else said…
Re: Re: Re:14
I wasn’t askingfor evidence of your alleged neurotype, only where you’ve defended autistic peopleon this site. Thanks for pullinga Chozen, though. So funny.
Re: Re: Re:15
How did I “pull[] a Chozen”?
Like I said, I don’t care if you don’t believe me about that as it wasn’t intended as an argument to persuade you to begin with, so I don’t care enough to go back through over a year’s worth of comments to find what you ask for. I am not required to provide evidence for a claim I’m not trying to convince you to believe.
Re: Re: Re:11
A follow-up on this. As I mentioned, the initial discussion in which it came up was a long time ago, so I couldn’t recall where or with whom I was speaking about autism, but that user appears to have returned (still unregistered) under the pseudonym DBA Philip Cross or something, though they used the pseudonym ROGS and variants of that during that particular discussion. They kept rambling about psyops and the ADL and other conspiracy claims, and they alleged really crazy stuff about psychiatry, mental disorders, and autism during all this, and I called them out about that.
Now that I have that much information, it’d be a lot easier for me to find one or more of the original threads than it was originally. If you’re still interested, I’ll do my best to try and find one or more of those. Just let me know, and I’ll give it a try.
Re: Re: Re:12
Bitching about autism seems to be a new favorite tactic of ROGS – which baffling, considering that his entire shtick has been focused heavily on the police abusing their powers and resources to go after targeted individuals. And if you were to take ROGS’ word for it, the police are somehow being defended by… anonymous online commenters who lie somewhere on the autism spectrum. It’s like these people consistently pick the dumbest of hills to die on even when their premises aren’t inherently problematic.
Re: Re: Re:12
Those are the same person?? That explains so much…
Re: Re: Re:13
That’s the thing about trolls – they get a thrill from knowing they’ve messed with you, but at the same time, they can’t help but go back to their pet topics to bitch and whine about.
It’s why it’s so easy to tell John Smith even though he’s swapped his way through multiple pseudonyms over his Prenda-defense years. It’s also why his claims that someone is intentionally mimicking him to make his positions look extreme and dumb are unsubstantiated and don’t hold water. You simply cannot mimic a dedicated troll.
Re: Re: Re:9 You bring the accusation you bring the proof. That's how it works.
Wait… did you mean Crybaby Chozen?
If that’s who/what you mean, then yeah. Stephen, and about a dozen other people, myself included. Did indeed belittle, bully, and otherwise mock him mercilessly over the period of several days. I’m proud of it and will do it again.
Re: Re: Re:10
There’s no evidence that (un)Chozen is autistic. Quite the opposite. But thanks for your ill-informed ‘contribution’.
Re: Re: Re:10
I… don’t think that Chozen is autistic. While I understand being proud of messing with Chozen, saying that while also calling him autistic is kinda messed up.
Re: Re: Re:9 Self inflicted no doubt
I totally agree with you. Stephen is totes guilty. BUT… you’re not going nearly far enough. For weeks many of us have mercilessly mocked someone with a disability. We are all guilty AF.
Just one question though. How did you know the reason Chozen is a drooling idiot is that he has a TBI?
Re: Re: Re:10
So you’re just like Toom1275. Wait, scratch that. You’re worse because you repeated something that’s offensive to a marginalised group after being told it’s offensive. Fuck you very much. And no, I’m not Chozen.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
I believe it’s possible Stephen is further to the right than he pretends. Either that, or there are two people behind the pseudonym.The evidence certainly supports that conclusion.
Re: Re: Re:8
I don’t think he pretends to be particularly left- or right-leaning, but in this case, he is saying that differently abled people (a term meant to avoid sounding ableist, even by accident, and which clearly is meant to include people with an actual head injury) deserve better than to be lumped in with people like you.
Exactly how is that a right-leaning perspective?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Actually, the term “differently abled” is a microaggression at best, and outright predjudice at worst. So Stephen didn’t avoid “sounding ableist” because they instead went right to actually being ableist, by talking about people with disabilities in a way nobody talks about people without disabilities. And that’s right-leaning because when we treat others in a discriminatory way based on their differences to others, it’s called “racism” when the difference is skin color. You do the math.
Re: Re: Re:10
Genuine question: since when? I’m reasonably confident some people wanted to be called that at one point, and have no idea what the “appropriate” term is now since in this particular area it seems to change frequently, and there is often not agreement. So isn’t “hasn’t kept up with rapidly changing language” at least as likely as “prejudiced”?
Re: Re: Re:11
Actually, some parents without disabilities decided they wanted their children with Down syndrome called that without those children having any say in the matter. That’s not at all the same thing as a group deciding what terminology should be used about it. Now I’m signing off. I have a pounding headache.
Re: Re: Re:12
Parents make decisions on behalf of their children.
Re: Re: Re:13
Not once they’re adults unless they’re neurodivergent.
Re: Re: Re:14
Wouldn’t Down syndrome qualify as neurodivergent?
Re: Re: Re:15
I think that might have been AC’s point. When an adult is neurodivergent, we are often viewed and treated as children even when we have full agency. Our parents deciding how we should be spoken about ‘on our behalf’ is one such example.
Re: Re: Re:16
That’s fair, but if an outsider sees a parent saying “you should call them differently abled”, and doesn’t see anything from the child, is it not reasonable for them to conclude that “differently abled” is an appropriate term to use?
Re: Re: Re:17
If a nine-year-old autistic child (for example) has grown up not being offered other suggestions, they’re likely to go with the ‘status quo’ regardless of their own feelings on the matter due to their lack of options. That doesn’t mean they prefer having minority-preference terms being used about them, it only means that they have insufficient information to make their own choice. And before you ask about Internet access to seek the information, that’s not ubiquitous.
Re: Re: Re:18
I have no argument with that, I’m just referring to The Other Anonymous Coward’s claim that anyone using “differently abled” is prejudiced or using a microaggression, and subsequent claim that the only people asking for the term are parents and not the people themselves. Others may have entirely benevolent motivations for using “differently abled” (or any other term), even if nobody described by the term has themselves asked for its use.
Re: Re: Re:18
Again, though, I am one of these autistic people, and I have no problem with it. This is far from a universal opinion.
Re: Re: Re:12
I’m an actual disabled person. No one forced that term on me.
Again, there is no consensus among the disabled community that it is offensive.
Re: Re: Re:10
As a “differently abled” person myself, I firmly disagree.
The author of that article themself noted that other disabled persons disagree. I am one of them. If no offense was intended by the speaker or taken by a directed party, and steps were taken in an attempt to avoid being seen as offensive, then you’re just being overly sensitive if you accuse them of being a bigot.
No one talks about people without disabilities by saying they have disabilities because no duh! Unless you want people to not distinguish at all between disabled people and non-disabled people through terminology, this is a stupid objection.
Not all bigots are right-leaning, unfortunately. Many are, but not all. This is especially true among ableists. I know this from personal experience. The fact is that, while there is some correlation between bigotry and right-leaning views, it is far from exclusively right-wing.
More importantly, aside from calling disabled people “differently abled”—something which, as far as I can tell, only two people (you and the guy who wrote the article) actually find remotely offensive to disabled people, and which I (a disabled person) don’t find offensive at all and which many others actually prefer over “disabled”—you have provided no examples of Stephen treating people with disabilities in a discriminatory way.
Now, if you find it objectionable in reference to yourself, that’s fine. You can let Stephen know, and I’m sure he’ll avoid using that terminology in reference to you, specifically. However, you need to keep in mind that there is absolutely zero consensus among disabled people that agree with you. Some may find it offensive, some prefer it over any other terminology, and others simply don’t care either way. And there’s everything in-between as well. To say that use of the term “differently abled” in reference to people with disabilities is necessarily ableist is going way too far. Even worse is to draw any additional conclusions from that.
Given past behavior from Stephen—including times where he has called out others for ableist BS—I see no reason to conclude that he is ableist without more than just that.
Re: Re: Re:11
No one talks about people without disabilities by saying they have disabilities because no duh!
Oh? So how often have you heard someone say “person with Americanism”? Didn’t think so.
More importantly, aside from calling disabled people “differently abled”—something which, as far as I can tell, only two people (you and the guy who wrote the article) actually find remotely offensive to disabled people, and which I (a disabled person) don’t find offensive at all and which many others actually prefer over “disabled”…
A minority within any group does not constitute “many”.
Given past behavior from Stephen—including times where he has called out others for ableist BS—I see no reason to conclude that he is ableist without more than just that.
I used to know someone that always leapt to the defense of most people of color, but she still deliberately used racial epithets about other groups and was anti-Semitic. Therefore your assertions are meaningless without something else to back them.
Re: Re: Re:12
Because “Americanism” isn’t a thing, not because disabled people are treated differently in this way. I hear people say “person with blonde hair” and such all the time.
Do you have evidence that a majority find “differently abled” offensive? I’m speaking from my own personal experience. You can refute that by providing statistics or something, but so far, I only know of one or two who do, so I am not obligated to take your assertions as more accurate than my experience.
If you do have evidence, I will modify my argument accordingly, but until then, I will remain unconvinced of your claim.
I am only explaining why I can’t just accept your assertions as true. I’m not using that as an argument to persuade you to change your mind or to throw around accusations. I’m only explaining my own perspective.
By contrast, you’re accusing Stephen of bigotry without providing even one shred of evidence or reasoning to back it up. If you want to be taken seriously, please provide evidence for your claims. It’s really not that hard given that you apparently have two specific examples that allegedly occurred recently.
Also, while I don’t doubt that there are some hypocrites out there, I know of no person like your acquaintance who defends PoCs and shouts racial epithets, and logic would tend to suggest that such people are in the minority among people who defend PoCs. One single person doesn’t indicate a trend. However, that possibility is why I’m not dismissing your assertion about Stephen outright but asking for evidence to back it up. So, again, please provide evidence to back up your accusation. Otherwise, Hitchen’s Razor applies, and we’re at a stalemate at best.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
I’m with TOAC. On other threads you defend trans people, yet here you are not only acting aggressively towards a disabled person complaining about use of ableist language, but using language that’s offensive to the entire disability community while doing so. That’s definitely indicative of there being more than one of you.
Re: Re: Re:7
I don’t think anyone actually thinks TOAC has a head injury (TOAC hasn’t said they have, either), and Stephen is clearly saying that disabled people (including people who actually do have a head injury) deserve better than to be lumped in with TOAC. He also specifically avoided using ableist language (saying “differently abled” instead).
How is Stephen “acting aggressively towards a disabled person” or “using language that’s offensive to the entire disability community while doing so” here?
Are you referring to Toom? They were the one who initially brought up the head injury thing. Stephen was just saying that it is demeaning to disabled people to equate TOAC with them.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
I don’t think anyone actually thinks TOAC has a head injury (TOAC hasn’t said they have, either).
Actually, they did, and if Stephen and their equally ableist cronies hadn’t hidden the comment, I could have copy/pasted the exact sentence in which the declaration was made.
Re: Re: Re:9
Why is it you trolls are never smart enough not to gaslight about what everyone else can still clearly see? Such as your pathetic lie about why you have no evidence to back your hallucinations.
Re: Re: Re:10
Not everyone else can see it. Others using cell phones, for example, will be unable to see it. But tell you what, you pop open the comment and then search “head injury” in the page. You’ll see where the statement was made. If anyone’s gaslighting, it’s all the predjudiced bullies on this thread that collaborated to hide the evidence of a real person’s disability.
Re: Re: Re:11
If you do not provide the link yourself, and that is your responsibility because you are mating the claim, it looks like you are gaslighting by making unsupported claims.
Re: Re: Re:12
The only gaslighting being done is by those making it hard to impossible to get the evidence you keep demanding.That’s part of how gaslighting works.
Re: Re: Re:13
Yeah no, gaslighting it telling someone something not true and that’s in conflict with reality in an attempt to get them to doubt, ‘show your work’ does not qualify.
Re: Re: Re:13
It’s actually trivial to do if such evidence exists. I’ve never had trouble reading or copying from hidden comments on this site. I have no idea why you might be having trouble, but I can tell you that it’s not because you’re on mobile (as I am, too).
I don’t think that means what you think it means.
Re: Re: Re:11
I only read this site on a cellphone, and I have no issues reading hidden comments.
I actually did read the comment in question, and I don’t see where TOAC says that they, personally, have a head injury. They refer to Toom’s allegation that they have one and call him ableist for it, but they never actually say that they actually do have a head injury.
Re: Re: Re:12
They refer to Toom’s “joke” referencing people who have one and call him ableist for it, which is where they said have a head injury.
Fixed that for the chronically unenlightened.
Re: Re: Re:13
True, but this really only bolsters my point. Toom was not seriously alleging a head injury. Whether or not it was in poor taste or ableist or whatever, it’s obvious that neither Toom nor Stephen actually thought that TOAC actually had a head injury, and Stephen said nothing about TOAC even having a head injury, only that they should not be compared to disabled people including those with a head injury.
False. That is not what they said. They said—in a generic sense—that attacking someone for having a head injury or trying to insult someone by comparing them to someone with a head injury is ableist. Basically, they were defending disabled people in general, not necessarily including themself. Nowhere do they say, “Actually, I do have a head injury,” or anything like that. Nor have they since clarified that they did despite having made several subsequent comments in this very thread since I pointed out that they didn’t. That is simply an assumption you made based on what was said, but from what I can tell, that’s just you jumping to conclusions.
But hey, if I’m wrong, please provide a quote with a counterargument to prove your claim to be true. You made the positive claim here, so prove it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Are you new here? You can still copy/paste sentences from hidden comments. I’ve done so multiple times in this thread.
Re: How to reason, Lesson 1
That’s quite a dichotomy.
Four points that are exactly what the writers of the Bill of Rights were worried about strongly enough that they made sure that the key to preventing them was enshrined in the very first Amendment.
Further:
You defend her at your personal peril. She got to where she is by dragging her opponents down to her level, and then beating them with vast experience. Do you honestly want to be known for associating yourself with that kind of thing?
Hell’s Bells, she couldn’t even come up with something original, she just copied note for note a bill that was roundly laughed out of the Senate this time last year. I’ll bet she was hoping that everybody would’ve forgotten that fiasco by now, and now would be a good time to try again.
Your last chance:
What do you suppose might be the ramifications of that statement?
Ensure lock-in of incumbent companies and block competition for Facebook, Twitter, etc.
“It’s almost as if none of them have thought through any of this.”
It is almost as if you imagine any of these idiots can think at all…
Just change the law to say:
Also:
You can still block people directly. And who hired you to decide for every other person in the world what “spam” is?
Re:
No one. The point of existing law is that every site can decide what is and is not spam based on the desires of the owner, informed by feedback from users. A truism of user-generated content (UGC) is some volume of UGC will, inevitably, cross the subjective line for the community and be deemed spam or outside the topic of discussion or hateful or violent or generally unwelcome. Gettr moderating gay and furry porn the community didn’t like is just as valid as twitter moderating the guy who posted #HilterWasRight if twitter doesn’t like Neo Nazis. (a scenario that Jordan Peterson claims resulted in the pro-Hitler user being banned because of conservative views and Twitter’s left wing bias, not the pro-Hitler stance he was actually banned for).
The “denying access” argument could be used to require the Furry Porn spam be hosted just as much as it will require hosting the message #HitlerWasRight and the user which posts it.
Any exception that allows efforts done in ‘good faith’ requires a judge to determine good faith, which requires a lawsuit to adjudicate, which means there is no exception that can be relied upon. To avoid lawsuits, they can not rely on a ‘good faith’ exception. Good Fatih is subjective. The entire argument over moderation right now can be boiled down to Social Media claiming it is acting in good faith in the best interest of profit and shareholders, and politicians on both sides saying they aren’t acting in good faith, because what good faith is changes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Extrapolation to Absurdity
“Furry Porn” why is it always some absurd extrapolative or reductive argument with you morons.
Obscene material is already included in the bill.
Why do you insist on making such absurd arguments? Are you capable of even working in the sane reasonable ground and having real debates on real issues, not furry porn?
Re: Re: Re:
Define “obscene” in an enforceable way that doesn’t rely on any single person’s interpretation.
Re: Re: Re:2 I'll help you out ...
… with this one.
Let’s visit, for a moment, the USSC case of Miller vs California, 1973. To wit, Miller challenged the State’s obscenity law (under which he was being prosecuted). To cut to the chase, we see:
Let’s zero in on that phrase “community standards”. I posit that if the USSC can’t even come to think that the nation is one giant community, then I’ll throw this right back at you: who are you to decide that the Twitter community is invalid, that they can’t think for themselves, nor define obscenity and other such offensive materials as they wish? Or most importantly: to reject membership in that community, if the majority of them should so desire?
As a lesson in Civics, you should know by now that a community, whether on-line or in meat-space, acts to appoint (in some fashion) a leader, and that such leaders are charged with protecting the community in general from disruption. It doesn’t matter one whit who chooses the guidelines for the community, it’s the fact that such guidelines exist that is paramount. And if those guidelines are repugnant to a given community member? They are free to leave, and seek some other community. Pretty simple, that concept, don’t you agree?
But from what I’m gathering from your scribblings above, you want to be King Of All, and you want us to like it or lump it. I’ll be friendly and give you some sound advice: Better be prepared, ’cause hot tar and feathers are NOT a good look. Or are you on a personal crusade to bring back that particular fashion?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 The definition of obscene
If it has naked dick, tits, vagina or ass, it’s obscene.
Re: Re: Re:3
So a photo of a naked baby in a bathtub is obscene?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, and also CSAM.
Re: Re: Re:5
Well you’re factually incorrect, not that I expect you to care.
“Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity
“Child sexual abuse material means any representation through publication, exhibition, cinematography, electronic means or any other means whatsoever, of a child, a person made to appear as a child or realistic material representing a child, engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activity, or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes.”
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/child-sexual-abuse-material
Re: Re: Re:5
Why can’t parents record the joyous moments with their children?
Re: Re: Re:5
Well, if bathing a baby is CSAM, then I should turn myself in for sexual assault of a child under the age of thirteen.
Re: Re: Re:3
Like God wasted a whole Commandment restricting free speech about body parts? Bull Shit
Re: Re: Re:3
So the statue of Adam is obscene?
Re: Re: Re:3
Breastfeeding, plummer’s ‘crack’ or other drooping of pants intentional or not, giving birth, anatomical diagrams, photos of medical conditions and procedures,surgical outcomes, tattoos & body art/modification, indigenous people going about their lives, people enjoying clothing optional recreation and group activities, acts of protest, documenting crime or event of public interest- like the naked protester in 2020 that cops weren’t too sure how to handle, but decided to go home rather than engage.
Nudity doesn’t even spark much concern on my mommy radar of things to worry about my child seeing, it’s way more what sorts of activity are the people are participating in, because I don’t want my child to see sex acts or real documented, footage of violence. I know that in a blink of an eye , she will be grown up and I won’t be able to keep her so sheltered.
Nudity should be more normalized, so long as any body in the state of undress is old &wise enough to give their consent & has done so.
I’m not saying that sex acts or real accounts of violence are so obscene that they should be banned, just that encounters with such materials should be voluntarily or intentionally sought, affirmatively chosen to view, not some random pop up or cheap trick.
Re: Re: Re:
Obscenity is a very high bar. I’m confident that plenty of disturbing material — including non-obscene furry porn, because not all porn is obscenity — can be found without any trouble. But first, let me just say, ‘not it.’
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 More Reduction
Again another absurd argument. Yes Michelangelo’s David is not considered obscenity. That does not mean fury porn isn’t obscenity. Section 230 currently gives exceptions for obscenity.
Re: Re: Re:3
Doesn’t mean that it is, either. If a particular community (or its leaders) is ok with it, why should your opinions supersede theirs? Similarly, if a particular community (or its leaders) is NOT ok with something, again, why should your opinions supersede theirs?
In either case, if you disagree with a particular community’s opinion, there’s nothing stopping you from finding a different community whose opinions and interests are more aligned with your own.
Re: Re: Re:3
Who are you to decide what is obscene, (un)Chozen? The community consensus is that bestiality porn is obscene, standard sex between two humans is not. If you don’t understand that, then you’re either Donald Trump or never going to be elected to any position of power to ban the things you don’t like.
Re: Re: Re:3
Not all furry porn will satisfy the Miller test for obscenity, just as not all non-furry porn is obscene.
But in any case, it’s easier to sidestep the whole issue. Just as people are often disgusted by porn for some reason, people are often just as disgusted by imagery of, what for lack of a better term, we could describe as ‘blood and guts.’ And since it isn’t meant to appeal to a prurient interest we completely avoid the obscenity thing. And I assure you, if you think you’ve seen your share of 80s action movies and it doesn’t bother you, then you clearly don’t know just how gross this stuff can get. But you don’t want people to be able to ban it, so enjoy, I guess.
While that has general lack of appeal, if you know your audience, I’m sure you can manage more targeted disturbing and disgusting but non-obscene imagery. In fact with recent developments with AIs I bet you could train one to generate just loads of it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Just as people are often disgusted by porn for some reason, people are often just as disgusted by imagery of, what for lack of a better term, we could describe as ‘blood and guts.’ And since it isn’t meant to appeal to a prurient interest we completely avoid the obscenity thing.
So why the existence of snuff films? They’re obscene.
Re: Re: Re:5
The Supreme Court says otherwise.
Re: Re:
Any exception that allows efforts done in ‘good faith’ requires a judge to determine good faith…
Or a suitably experienced lawyer. A good lawyer can save the plaintiff a bundle on a groundless lawsuit.
Re:
Who are you to demand that you can say what you want on any platform, and against the wishes of the majority of the users.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
People are free to block me or not read my posts if they don’t like what I say, unless, for some delusional reason, you believe people are forced to read every post on every social media site in existence.
If Twitter, et al., don’t want certain viewpoints on their sites, they can close it off to only users that they like to hear from instead of making it open to everyone.
How do you know what the majority of users’ wishes are? When have you answered a poll for what your wishes are when logging into Twitter or Facebook?
As it is now, the “majority of users” preferences are set by statists who run these platforms, not actual users.
Re: Re: Re:
… who have data from the actual users – including complaints – and thus are in a better position to propose a “majority of users” view than you-the-single-user.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah yes, curse them for having the audacity to have acceptable behavior rules and penalties for violating it, something that no other platform, person or business, online or off would ever even think of having…
If Twitter, et al., don’t want certain viewpoints on their sites, they can close it off to only users that they like to hear from instead of making it open to everyone.
Which ‘viewpoints’ do you think Twitter and other social media sites are blocking, be specific.
Re: Re: Re:
Their TOS define what they consider acceptable, in enough detail for most people to understand them. So stop trying to claim that the sites claim to be open to everyone, without any constraints on what they can say.
Re: Re: Re:2
Or put another way, Twitter isn’t open to everyone. It’s only open to people who agree to its terms of service, which include agreeing to let Twitter moderate however they see fit.
Re: Re: Re:2
Nobody reads TOS, just like nobody reads EULAs.
Re: Re: Re:3
Irrelevant. You’re still bound by the rules you agreed to follow, even if you didn’t bother to read them, unless and until those rules are found in court to be not legally enforceable and/or unlawful.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Contracts
A ToS is just a contract. 3 thigns void a contract.
Social media ToS almost all fail to meet #3. They are intentionally ambiguous. Mike has even wrote articles defending their ambiguity because “bad faith actors.”
ToS aren’t worth the paper they are not printed on.
Re: Re: Re:5
Ambiguity in a contract does not necessarily void it, unless it is so vague as to be unconscionable. More typically in contracts of adhesion like a ToS, if ambiguity exists and it is challenged in court, the court tends to find against the party that included the ambiguous language.
Re: Re: Re:5
You apparently can’t count. That’s four things, and only two of them actually void a contract necessarily.
You also confuse “ambiguous” with “vague” or “broad”. The terms are not ambiguous at all; they are simply very broad.
Re: Re: Re:3
‘I’m too lazy to read the rules I’m agreeing to so it’s unfair to expect me to follow them’ is not the argument you might think it is.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’ve never read anything that explicitly says I can’t set fire to your house whilst you’re asleep in bed. Your point?
Re: Re: Re:
But most people don’t want to accidently stumble across offensive posts from, say, neo-Nazis, and have to block them. They don’t want to ever see them in the first place. Just because your posts may not raise to the level of universal repugnance doesn’t mean Twitter should have to allow those sort of posts.
That is literally what they do now. Titter is not “open to everyone”, it’s open to everyone who follows their rules of conduct. When you sign up you agree to follow those rules, and if you repeatedly break those rules, you’re shown the door. Every other social media company operates the same way, even those who claim otherwise.
Don’t you think that after 15 years those “statists” (not a word) would have figured out what the preferences of the majority of there users are?
Re: Re: Re:2 Sidenote
If he’s making up words for statisticians, I feel that in this case he should’ve gone for Stazis.
Re: Re: Re:2
Statist is a word, and you probably are one. Statism is the position that the political state has some legitimate authority. Its opposite is anarchism.
Re: Re: Re:3
I stand corrected, and now think that comment sounds ever dumber…
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that’s what they’ve been doing. They’re making it open to everyone who hasn’t yet demonstrated that they’re someone they don’t want on their sites, which therefore means that there is a rebuttable presumption that any given user is someone that they’d like to hear from.
Because if the site guesses wrong, the users will leave. All else being equal, continued popularity indicates user satisfaction.
Re: Re: Re:
A user using a platform that moderates is the user’s choice saying they don’t want to see it.
Re:
Hormel?
Twitter et al should have an anti-230 party for a few hours every year.
Every time somebody tries to post something, they get a landing page/popup:
“In the absence of Section 230, we would face the prospect of defending numerous lawsuits. We would win, but it would not be cost-effective to defend them all vigorously. In such a world, we would be compelled to review every post made on this site before it is made available to the wider internet. This is a preview of that world. Your post is number 12,430,659 in the moderation queue. It will be approved or disapproved in approximately 33 days.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Fortunately, the MTG proposed legislation still keeps the old 3rd party exemption. The liability comes from moderation. This is the big difference between Republican 230 reform versus Democrat 230 reform: repeal and amend it to allow more speech, or repeal and amend it to mandate more moderation in the way the government sees fit.
Re: Re:
That’s true, they violate the first amendment in opposite ways.
Re: Re: Re:
If not legally, then spiritually.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no first amendment right to engage in discrimination, common carrier violations or otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’m sure the many, many stores, platforms and other owners of private property will be quite surprised to learn that they cannot in fact choose who is allowed to use their property to speak and decide what they consider acceptable speech on their property, you should probably go out and start telling them they don’t have that right so they can stop engaging in unconstitutional discrimination.
Re: Re: Re:2
Of course there is. Only discrimination in certain contexts based on certain criteria is prohibited. Social media moderation is not one of those contexts, and speech viewpoint is not one of the criteria.
Social media platforms are not common carriers.
Re: Re: Re:3
Neither is political affiliation, for that matter.
Re: Re: Re:2
Every time you use the words “common carrier” in the context of social media, you will be laughed at and mocked for your ignorance. The fact that you keep repeating such nonsense is astounding.
Re:
Please insert $20 to move up the queue.
Money problems solved!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Disingenous
Rather disingenuous to claim that a bill that eliminates and replaces section 230 with a more “restrained” 3rd party protection somehow will open social media to an “Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits”.
It seems to me you are just upset about losing “otherwise objectionable” as a catch all that the 9th circuit has used to turn a qualified immunity into what is essentially an unqualified immunity.
She’s not a smart person, claiming the Catholic Church is run by Satan, wtf, removing section 230 would remove user content by most websites including content posted by republicans or does she want to see most websites overrun by spam , she makes trump seem like a genius. Small websites would simply remove all user content in order to avoid pointless legal action by Spammers or trolls.
Re:
TorrentFreak (.com) has already done this, moving comments to a public-facing social media account. Nothing more than a word-salad in explanation.
In fact, Disqus was already handling their comment section, so one can only wonder, was it done out of fear of a 230-less future, or….
Re: Re:
Ernesto posted that they are a small website & they just didn’t have enough time to go through the manage the comments.
While Disqus provided the platform I don’t they they provide real moderators for the content.
Re:
To be fair to Marge Three-Names, the Catholic Church is an inherently evil institution that has ignored and covered up many, many, many crimes by its “employees”—not the least of which is the decades of child abuse committed by Catholic clergy.
But no, the Pope isn’t Satan. Satan has better things to do than that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Unless you’ve met every single Catholic who ever lived, you can’t say anything about the group as a whole. Anytime you make a generalization of any kind, you’re saying that you don’t see people as individuals but as simply faceless parts of larger blocks, and you’re also saying that it’s fine for others to generalize against you and what you believe. Until you can provide evidence from totally non-left/non-liberal sources that have absolutely no connection or funding of any kind from or to anyone or any source of that sort, your argument fails because it’s based on biased information and a biased worldview.
While there have been instances of child abuse, for example, not every priest in the church has or ever would take part in it or condone it, and you need to acknowledge that without any caveats, conditions, or qualifications. No buts, nothing. Just say it, plain and simple. Or admit that you happily judge anyone who is different than you and refuse to give them that which you insist must be given to you.
Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t talk shit about lay Catholics. I talked shit about the institution known as the Catholic Church and its “employees” (including all the child rapists). Says a lot that you’re willing to stump for the institution by assuming I was attacking all Catholics when I wasn’t.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
It is a moral duty to throw them to the lions. They’ve had it too good, for far too long. The actually decent ones will gladly martyr themselves and the ones who aren’t will deserve it.
Re: Re: Re:
Unless you’ve met every single Catholic who ever lived, you can’t say anything about the group as a whole.
Right, because making statements about an organization is making statements about all of its members in the same way that complaining about Twitter ‘censorship’ is complaining that all of its members, including Republicans, censor others. Get how statements work yet?
Re: Re: Re:
Unless you’ve met every single Catholic who ever lived, you can’t say anything about the group as a whole.
Oh that’s fucking rich.
The fuck I can’t. You guys lost any moral highground once we found out that you were protecting pedophile priests on a large scale.
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, the Vatican was protecting pervert priests on a wide scale. Most ordinary Catholics didn’t know anything about the abuse.
Re: Re: Re:3
But they have known about it for a long time, just like the rest of us.
Re: Re: Re:4
Which makes the rest us all guilty if Catholics are guilty of what their leaders did.
Re: Re: Re:4
Round them up, and toss them to the lions.
Re: Re: Re:3
And yet even in the face of evidence showing it did indeed happen, a whole bunch of the faithful kept claiming the victims were liars & making their lives hell.
They aren’t a monolithic single group, but there do seem to be common themes that keep popping up.
Re: Re: Re:
“Anytime you make a generalization of any kind,”
Kinda like how you just did a whole post of that about Stephen?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
TBH, going by the way Stephen treats members of marginalized groups, they deserve it.
Re: Re: Re:3
What marginalized groups? I’ve only seen him defending marginalized groups.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s just trash/blue projecting, same as always.
Re: Re: Re:5
Who’s “trash/blue”?
Re: Re: Re:6
Out of the Blue, Bobmail, Antidirt. Long-time troll/trolls u healthily obsessed with anyone who calls them on their bullshit. See also: Chozen, jhon smith, Hamilton.
They also have a habit of posting under other peoples’ names, something they like to project Mike does.
Re: Re: Re:7
They also come up with fanciful lies about how Techdirt’s moderation system works, and Stephen has apparently taken up permanent residence in his head.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Correction, you’ve seen him defending one marginalized group: trans people. Possibly because he’s part of that community or close to someone else who is. I do does not have selective vision, however, and have seen him speak against racism in only a general way without defending any particular targeted group, and have actually seen him picking on multiple people with disabilities.
Re: Re: Re:5
and have actually seen him picking on multiple people with disabilities.
As the saying goes, [Citation Needed].
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
There are none so blind as those that choose not to see.
Re: Re: Re:7
So you’ve got nothing, thanks for clearing that up.
Re: Re: Re:7
Try me. You have still not provided anything but bald assertions. I’m not going to do your work for you. You made the claim, so you have to provide proof if you want anyone to take you seriously.
Re: Re: Re:5
And homosexuals. And bisexuals. And black people. And disabled people. And atheists. And…
In the sense that he’s LGBT, yes, he’s part of that community. He is not transgender, though.
I’m still waiting for evidence of that. As the one making the positive claim, the burden of proof is on you to provide that evidence. So please provide evidence if you have it. If you do not, Hitchen’s Razor applies, and we can dismiss your claim without providing any evidence of our own.
And no, saying “it’s obvious” is not providing evidence. I’m not going to do your homework for you.
Re: Re: Re:6
As part of the group that made it impossible for cell phone users to see hidden comments, you should.
Re: Re: Re:7
Again, as a cell phone user myself, I have no problem seeing hidden comments, so, frankly, I don’t believe you when you say you can’t for that specific reason. Maybe there is some other reason you can’t, but I don’t know what that is, and I also don’t know what you’re basing your claim on (I’m not a mind-reader), so no, I won’t make your argument for you.
Also, few of the comments I flag weren’t already hidden beforehand (mostly spam, complaints about comments being hidden, and references to suicide), and even that’s not all that common, so I likely had nothing to do with hiding whatever comment(s) you’re referring to. And since I have no affiliation with this site at all, I had nothing to do with whatever prevents you from reading hidden comments on this site. So your accusation towards me is almost certainly false.
Oh, and one more thing: we’re talking about evidence of Stephen’s alleged conduct. To my knowledge, absolutely none of his posts have been hidden. I certainly haven’t flagged them. So why does it even matter if you can’t read hidden posts?
Re: Re: Re:7
It’s quite easy to see hidden flagged comments. Just click the “click here to show it” text.
If it doesn’t work it’s on your end.
Re: Re: Re:
“you can’t say anything about the group as a whole”
And yet I can show you a whole buncha really not nice things they like to say about me…
Re: Re: Re:
There is a huge difference between criticizing the well known criminal activity of the worst kind that the Catholic Church has been involved in, and calling catholic people or the entirety of the clergy evil. Are you trying to make a serious argument with this drivel?
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes. Anyone who believes in an imaginary sky friend is a plague and menace to a society trying to move onto the next stage of progressive development. We cannot do this as long as non-binary, furry and unbirthing communities live in fear of homicidal, judgmental freaks of nature whose only goal in life is the insertion of a phallic implement into a woman’s vagina. I propose we start by taking their “fanfiction” they refer to as “holy texts” and moving them next to the “Fifty Shades of Grey” volumes.
Re: Re:
Wait until you hear about teachers!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-media-ignored-sex-abuse-in-school/
Maybe we should shut down the public schools, too…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Pederasty is completely fine, though. The Ancient Greeks did it and it’s completely wholesome and natural. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
Re: Re: Re:2
Then I suppose I’m a bigot. Unless a guy’s close in age to me (ten years either side), I’m not interested.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Love wins. You’ll see eventually. You can’t stop true love.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not facing it doesn’t make it go away.
The issue with Marjorie Taylor Greene (and her buddies) is, she can’t take the not so subtle hint. I’m wondering why she isn’t touting how Pravda…I mean Truth social is solving the problem? She’s desperate to force others to listen to the bullshit.
Re: It's simple, really.
People like Marge Three-Names want to “own the libs” to their faces. They can’t do that if they get banned from or voluntarily leave whatever platform “the libs” use. It’s less about discussion and more about confrontation—something conservative-heavy platforms like Truth Social and Parler lack because “the libs” refuse to join those platforms for fairly obvious reasons.
It’s always amazing to me that all these people come here to the comments section in order to proclaim that Twitter should be moderated to suit their own personal speech.
All without ever admitting that there are multiple social media apps that do exactly that, moderate to suit their right wing conservative agenda (of hate).
If you don’t like how Twitter moderates because it means you can’t be a racist asshole, then why don’t you take your racist assholery to Gab, or Truth, or Frank, or Parler, etc.?
Quit complaining about not being able to be an asshole on Twitter and go to one of the apps that expressly allows you to be the raging asshole want to be?
Re:
Because the people making all the noise about free speech are determined to eliminate all speech they disagree with. theirs. To do that they need access to platforms where their opposition gathers.
Re:
In addition to what the AC above notes about how it’s no fun to be an asshole in a room of nothing but assholes it’s because admitting that those other platforms exist undermines their argument.
If they admit that they’re perfectly able to speak on the other platforms it’s just no-one wants to listen then it becomes real clear that their goal in trying to ban moderation isn’t ‘free speech’ but forced speech and association, allowing them to hijack private property to speak even if the users or property owners don’t want them around.
Re: Re:
Those kinds of assholes will always claim “I am being silenced!” to soothe their egos, imply they have a right to an audience, and let themselves believe their unpopular views (you know the ones…) are actually popular.
So maybe Twitter should have a day when they flag all the tweets that would be too dangerous to allow through “this tweet would be banned because tornado warnings are upsetting to some people” ” this tweet would be banned because it mentions a non fundi xtian religion.”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No, lack of Section 230 will incentivize no moderation whatsoever, a favorable outcome. See Cubby v. Compuserve. A return to the good old times where you could post anything you wanted without being a victim of mob justice or witch hunts.
Re:
Are you serious, or just trying to invoke Poe’s Law?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I am always serious.
Re: Re: Re:
So stupid it is, then,
Re: Re: Re:2
Not necessarily, they could just be a horrible person.
Re: Re: Re:3
Same difference.
Re: Re: Re:4
Not really, stupid doesn’t automatically translate to horrible person anymore than smart does, someone could be extremely dumb/smart and be perfectly nice or they could be toxic and not someone anyone wants to be around.
Re: Re: Re:5
Actually, stupidity is deliberate and generally, if not always, engaged in by individuals such as Graham Linehan and She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
Re: Re: Re:6
Trust me. Not everyone is intentionally stupid. Some come by it honestly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Mike Is Lying
As usual mike is lying. This bill doesn’t get rid of protections from suit based on 3rd party speech. It does however get rid of the nebulous “otherwise objectionable” that has made section 230 a joke of the law.
Re: Re:
Here’s the text of the bill for anyone who wants to see if Mike is lying about it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1384/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%2221st+century+free+speech+act%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Yeah
Yeah I read it and mike is clearly fukcing lying. Its very much section 230 but not as broad.
New
““(2) CIVIL LIABILITY.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable, under subsection (c) or otherwise, on account of—
“(i) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, promoting self-harm, or unlawful, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;”
Old
“(2) CIVIL LIABILITY- No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of–
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or”
The difference is that “otherwise objectionable” Silicon Valley’s favorite catch all has been removed. That should have happened a long time ago.
Re: Re: Re:2
… said nobody who underatands and supports freedom of speech, ever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 WTF
WTF does that even mean? It’s almost identical language the only difference is that “otherwise objectionable” a phrase that is so broad that the entire act should have been voided decades ago for overbreadth has been removed.
Re: Re: Re:4
Can, and is used yo mean whatever the site operators find objectionable. For example someone pushing a political ideology is a knitting forum is being otherwise objectionable.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5 Overbreadth
The issue is overbreadth. Section 230 is a law. It is a qualified immunity.
Defining “otherwise objectionable” as “Can, and is used yo mean whatever the site operators find objectionable.” Turns the qualified immunity into an unqualified immunity and is an illegal law due to overbreadth and vagueness.
Re: Re: Re:6
Did you just compare private websites moderating to cops getting away with murder?
Re: Re: Re:6
“Overbreadth” is only a problem if the conditions to be guilty are overbroad. A law can’t be found unconstitutional because it immunizes too much. Same goes for vagueness: if the vagueness leads to more speech being protected from creating liability, then there’s no constitutional issue.
Also, you’re the one asserting the immunity is qualified. Immunity is not required to be qualified to be constitutional (see, for example, the absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors get for their decisions in court). Nevertheless, the conditions for immunity granted by §230 are not vague: if it is content by a third-party and not by the ISP or some user, then the ISP (or user) cannot be held liable for that third-party content as a publisher of that content; good faith attempts to moderate content on an ISP for being somehow objectionable (whether by the ISP or user(s)) is also immunized; and the provision of tools by the ISP to allow users to do their own moderation are immunized. The only exceptions are that there is no immunity from federal criminal laws, laws governing IP, and sex-trafficking (in some cases) under §230, though copyright has a similar, though not identical, provision of immunity for ISPs under the DMCA. The only thing not specified is what is “objectionable”, but that doesn’t change the constitutionality of §230.
Re: Re:
Eventually you’ll end up with expensive, destructive case law that says the same thing, because First Fucking Amendment.
Re: Re: Re:
You mean the same First Amendment that Ron DeSantis successfully violated not long back?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Choice
Nobody is saying that bigtech has to evoke their immunity every time they are sued. That is a choice. Both section 230 and this new act are a qualified immunity. QUALIFIED! If you want the immunity you have to jump through some hoops. If you want more freedom to edit content don’t claim the immunity.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ll just leave this link here.
Re: Re: Re:2
A reminder that no one is claiming that any platform edits user content; they only choose whether to show, hide, suspend, block or delete user content, how to rank user content, whether to append their own speech after user content, whether to suspend, block, or delete users or their accounts, or to provide tools to allow users to do any of the above.
With the exception of appending their own speech, all of this is unequivocally and almost unconditionally protected by §230.
And sure, anyone can choose not to assert that they are protected by §230 when sued, but the same goes for asserting that you did not do something at all.
Re:
Ah yes, because what online platforms need is to become one and all indistinguishable from 4chan or similar sites…
Re: Congrats?
Damn son you are making a play for being dumber that Chodaboi.
The first is a single organization, the other a generic term for tax-funded schools.
Re:
In the UK, ‘public schools’ is an umbrella term covering every fee-paying school. I guess the person you responded to doesn’t understand that the term has a more literal meaning in other countries.
Re: Re:
Yeah, the reply ended up in the wrong place.
Regardless, the point I was making was that “public schools” is a general term encompassing certain types of schools which are no way analogous to a specific organization for a religion with a track-record of protecting evil-doers.
The how and why a public school is a public school doesn’t matter.
Minor correction
Repealing 230 wouldn’t increase liability. At all.
Rather what would happen is an open flood of lawsuits that boost money to have tossed.
230 isn’t the liability remover. That exists already elsewhere.
230 is the protection against defending frivolous suit in court.
Yikes, not good.